Seize the diversity market: a pragmatic view

An
opportunity for PBS as it
seeks a new president

Originally published in Current, Nov. 1, 1999Commentary by Gary P. Poon

With the search for Ervin Duggan’s successor now underway, public
broadcasting has an opportunity to reflect on how the next PBS
president should deal with the many controversial issues facing
the system — 30-second spots, leasing of the digital spectrum, and
delivery of PBS programs on DBS, to name a few.

Amidst these raging debates, we should not lose sight of our
commitment to diversity and multiculturalism. How will we provide
a narrative space for different ethnic and racial groups to express
their hopes and fears, their struggles and triumphs, their successes
and failures? How will we allow various ethnic minorities to speak
in what one commentator calls the “voice of color.”(1)
In short, how will we allow the diversity
of perspectives to be aired, the marginalized voices to be heard,
and the American stories to be told?

Attempts to bring perspectives that are considered “outside the
mainstream” have sometimes engendered a lot of controversy, both
within and outside the system. In some cases, public broadcasting
has been subject to threats to reduce or even eliminate its governmental
funding. In the face of these political and funding pressures,
should we shy away from programs that contain unconventional or
unpopular views, such as the personal struggles of a black homosexual
man? Or, do we have the courage to be different?

For the purist, the answer is obvious: public television must
take risks to reflect America’s diversity, even if it means offending
the mainstream. But for the pragmatist, the answer is less clear-cut:
because public broadcasting’s governmental funding is politically
based, programming decisions necessarily require a judgment about
what the community standard is and, yes, whether someone in that
community might be offended. A critical challenge for the next
PBS president is how he—or she is able to balance these
two approaches. Simply stated, how will the next president guide
the system in developing a national/local strategy that furthers
diversity and multiculturalism while maintaining, or even increasing,
public broadcasting’s political and financial support? In thinking
about this dilemma, let us consider the following:

U.S. demographics are rapidly changing, giving rise to a
greater need for more diverse programming.

Minorities are altering the political landscape and will
therefore redefine what is or is not “politically acceptable.”

Minorities are gaining more economic power than ever before
with the phenomenal growth of minority-owned businesses and
increases in income levels and net worth.

There will be an enormous transfer of wealth to “Generation
X,” a generation that exemplifies, and even thrives on, diversity.
If these trends continue—and there’s no reason to believe they
won’t—what we now think of as “diversity” will soon become
the “mainstream.” Would it therefore not be impractical, and even
counterproductive, to cling to old assumptions about what types
of programming may or may not be politically acceptable? Indeed,
there may come a day when it would be politically unacceptable not to have
a thousand voices be heard.

The founders’ vision

The utilization of a great technology for great purposes,
the appeal to excellence in the service of diversity—these became
the concepts that gave shape to the work of the [Carnegie] Commission.
In the deepest sense, these are the objectives of our recommendations.(2)

The first Carnegie Commission articulated in 1967 a grand vision
for public television built upon the principles of diversity and
multiculturalism. “America is geographically diverse, ethnically
diverse, widely diverse in its interests,” they observed. “American
society has been proud to be open and pluralistic, repeatedly
enriched by the tides of immigration and the flow of social thought.
Our varying regions, our varying religious and national and racial
groups, our varying needs and social and intellectual interests
are the fabric of the American tradition.”

Public television, the Commission wrote, should “help us see
America whole, in all its diversity.” It “should be a mirror of
the American style” and “should remind us of our heritage and
enliven our traditions.” It is a place “where people of the community
express their hopes, their protests, their enthusiasms, and their
will.” It should provide “a voice for groups in the community
that may otherwise be unheard.” Its programs “should help us know
what it is to be many in one, to have growing maturity in our
sense of ourselves as a people.” It should, in short, be the “clearest
expression of American diversity, and of excellence within diversity.”

Yet, many of its critics—and even its champions—have charged
that public television has fallen far short of these ideals. While
there may be some exceptions, public television programming, they
say, tends to be dull, unimaginative, predictable and safe. “The
fear of alienating corporate underwriters, station subscribers
and government officials reinforces what William Hoynes calls
a ‘logic of safety’ and a culture of timidity inside public television,”
wrote one independent producer turned academician.(3) “Such timidity has not always been
the norm,” another observer added, “it is learned behavior, based
on survival instincts.”(4)

While there may be some truth to these criticisms, it would be
naive to expect public broadcasting to ignore the now-predictable
threats to cut off its funding whenever a controversial or provocative
program is aired. But, if public broadcasting’s self-censorship
is a learned behavior, can it not also be unlearned?

Changing demographics

America’s demographics are changing at an unprecedented rate.
As we approach the next century, the U.S. population is becoming
increasingly more diverse. According to the Census Bureau’s projections,
the combined population of ethnic minority (5) groups will continue to grow more rapidly than
that of non-Hispanic whites. (6)

In fact, while the overall U.S. population is expected to grow
almost 50 percent from 263 million in 1995 to 394 million in 2050,
the minority population will account for nearly 90 percent of
this increase of 131 million people. (7)
Consider the following projections:(8)

Non-Hispanic white population will fall steadily from 74
percent in 1995 to 53 percent in 2050.

By 2030, the non-Hispanic white population will be less than
half of the U.S. population under age 18.

Hispanic-Americans and the Asian and Pacific Islanders are
the fastest-growing populations, increasing by 2 percent a year
until 2030. (In comparison, even at the peak of the Baby Boom
era, the total U.S. population never grew by 2 percent a year.)

By 2010, the Hispanic population will become the second largest
race/ethnic group. After 2020, the Hispanic population will
add more people to the U.S. every year than all other race/ethnic
groups combined.

In 2025, one-fourth of the total U.S. population will live
in states where ethnic “minorities” exceed “non-minorities.”

If we are serious about public television’s mandate—or its survival—the
programming that it provides to the local communities must reflect
this growing diversity. Otherwise, public television will grow
out of touch with its constituencies and become irrelevant.

The changing face of politics

Because public broadcasting receives a substantial portion of
its funding from the federal, state, and local governments, it
is only natural to worry about the political consequences of what
we broadcast. Programs—such as Tongues Untied (aired on P.O.V. in 1991) and more recently “It’s Elementary”—have offended some
“conservative” factions, resulting in threats to reduce or even
eliminate public broadcasting’s funding at the federal and state
levels.

Undoubtedly, there is a sensitive interdependence between public
television’s programming and its governmental funding. To state
the obvious, this relationship will vary along with the day’s
reigning ideology. But while the political pendulum will continue
to swing between conservatives and liberals, the faces of politics
are becoming more diverse.

For example, the percentages of minority groups serving in Congress
have risen substantially in recent years.(9) Since 1967, the year of the Public Broadcasting Act, the number
of Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans serving in Congress
has risen from 11 to 62, a 464 percent increase. This is comparable
to the increase in the number of women in Congress, which rose
from 12 to 67 during this period, a 458 percent increase.

A similar story seems to be unfolding in the Executive Branch.
While the total number of federal employees has fallen from 1990
to 1997, the number of minorities holding senior or executive
level jobs has actually risen during this period.
(10) In fact, the percentage of minorities in policymaking
positions has been rising at an appreciably faster rate than that
of majority whites—109 percent and 166 percent for African Americans
and Hispanics, respectively, compared to 44 percent for non-Hispanic
whites.

Certainly, it may take some time before the makeup of our government
truly reflects the demographics of the overall population. But
as politics become more inclusive, might not the unconventional
become more conventional, the marginalized less marginal, and
the risqué less risky?

Growing economic muscle

Public television receives approximately 37 percent of its funding
from individuals and corporations combined. In considering whether
or not to give a voice to traditionally under-served communities,
public broadcasting cannot afford to ignore the growing economic
power and marketplace of ethnic minorities.

According to a recent report prepared by the Small Business Administration,
minority-owned businesses are a rapidly growing segment of the
U.S. economy. (11) From
1987 to 1997, the number of minority-owned businesses increased
167 percent, while revenues and employment grew 343 percent and
362 percent, respectively.

Consistent with the changing population growth, Hispanic-owned
businesses increased more rapidly from 1987 to 1997 than any other
types of minority-owned businesses. By 1997, Hispanic-owned businesses
were the most numerous, totaling 1.4 million, followed by Asian-American-owned
businesses at 1.1 million, and African-American-owned at 880,000.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) in the U.S. Department
of Commerce has estimated that the current purchasing power of
minority groups is approximately $1 trillion. More significantly,
it has projected that the minority buying power “will increase
substantially over the next 50 years as the U.S. economy grows,
minority population increases, and disparities diminish in income
between minorities and nonminorities.”(12)

The rise of Generation X

But wait, there’s more. The amount of wealth that will be transferred
to the younger generations over the next 50 years is staggering.
Such intergenerational transfer of wealth has been estimated to
total anywhere from $10 trillion over the next 20 years(13) to as high as $41 trillion to $136
trillion over the next 50 years. (14)
While the accuracy of these estimates are subject to debate, the
Social Welfare Research Institute has heralded that a “golden
age of philanthropy is dawning, especially among wealth holders
and the upper affluent.”

As the Baby Boomer generation ages over the next 50 years, a
significant portion of this wealth transfer will go to those born
after 1964, or the Generation-Xers. In addition to its changing
racial mix, the chief distinguishing attitudinal trait of this
Generation X, according to generational marketers, is its tolerance
of, and desire for, diversity. J. Walker Smith, a speaker at this
year’s PBS Development Conference, wrote, “Diversity in all its
forms—cultural, political, sexual, racial, social—is a hallmark
of this generation, a diversity, accessible to everyone, that
transcends even national borders.”(15)

KQED’s experience

Anecdotally, KQED’s recent experience with the program,
"Chinatown," is a good example of how an appeal to diversity can attract a
whole new set of funders. Produced as part of the series, Neighborhood:
The Hidden Cities of San Francisco, this segment on Chinatown
told the neighborhood’s story from the point of view of those
who have lived there. The program used Chinese music, poetry,
and oral histories to make Chinatown’s history and everyday experience
come alive for the viewer.

According to Mary Bitterman, KQED’s president, one-third of the
funding for "Chinatown" came from members of the Chinese
community in San Francisco, 90 percent of whom had not previously
contributed to the station. The remaining amount was funded by
corporations and private foundations whose strategic mission,
principles and objectives include furthering the interests of
diversity.

Indeed, KQED has had a long history of celebrating multiculturalism
and recently reaffirmed its commitment to diversity as one of
its principal strategic priorities. “Every time we do something
to enhance diversity, it is met with such enthusiasm and support
from the community,” Mary said. “If we invite different ethnic
groups to participate in our decisions, rather than doing everything
behind closed doors, they will help us find the funding we need.”
(16)

Are you ready?

So, what does this all mean for PBS and its next president? As
public broadcasting is making the transition to digital television,
PBS will need to work with CPB, APTS, member stations, the Minority
Consortia, ITVS, and other public television stakeholders to develop
a systemwide digital strategy that both furthers diversity and
expands public broadcasting’s political and financial base of
support. Such a strategy could start with the following concrete
goals—which are achievable today using existing technology.

Expand the national schedule to allow more room for innovative
programs and unique perspectives. While the series P.O.V.
and Independent Lens are steps in the right direction,
only a small percentage of the prize-winning works by independent
and minority producers is selected for these series. By expanding
the national schedule or creating additional series, PBS could
offer independent and minority producers greater access to national
distribution. It would also encourage innovation in other genres,
such as drama, theatre, and performing arts. And, it would create
a larger pool of diverse and multicultural programming from
which member stations could choose for broadcast within their
respective communities.

Create one or more packaged feeds devoted to minority
programming. PBS could package an entire channel of programs
that are targeted to specific minority or ethnic groups. As
with the idea behind the Kids’ Channel, a packaged feed of minority
programming would give stations another option to fill the multicast
channels. Such a packaged feed could include not only the best
of P.O.V., Independent Lens or any other series, but
also foreign language movies and winners of international and
film festivals, for example. And, as an added twist, the “mainstream”
audience could activate the SAP channel in order to hear the
English version of these programs.

Develop an Internet and broadband strategy to further
engage racial and ethnic minorities. Media companies have
only just begun to explore how best to use the Internet and
broadband delivery to connect with their audiences and to allow
them to connect with one another. Public broadcasting needs
to develop a comprehensive Internet and broadband strategy to
engage people of all colors and to create a whole network
of diverse communities. As the number of users increases, such
a network becomes exponentially more valuable, a phenomenon
many scholars call a “positive network externality.”
(17) Further, the interactivity
that takes place within such a network could result in the creation of new forms
of content, thereby expanding public broadcasting’s library
of diverse and multicultural programming.

In the end, only history can judge how well public broadcasting
fulfills its mandate of furthering diversity and multiculturalism.
Will some people get offended in the process? Perhaps. Will the
tides change? Yes. Is it worth the challenge? Absolutely, for
serving diversity is what public broadcasting is all about.

PBS has an opportunity to help the system seize the market for
minority programming right now before cable or anyone else does.
Like everything else, this window of opportunity is a limited
one, for if PBS doesn’t do it, someone else will.

It is therefore incumbent upon the next PBS president and others
entrusted with this national treasure to utilize their intelligence,
foresight, and courage to fulfill public broadcasting’s bold vision.
In the words of the late Robert Saudek, an independent producer
and a member of the first Carnegie Commission, public television
“must be satisfied with nothing short of first-rate thoughts,
boundless energy, professional competence and the thrill of the
chase.” (18)

Gary Poon is the founding principal of DTVision, a consulting firm
that specializes in digital strategies
and public service media. He was formerly executive director
of the Digital Strategic Planning Office at PBS and an attorney
for the network. Poon is also a writer and a frequent guest
lecturer at the University of Maryland Business School. The
views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of his clients.

3. B.J. Bullert, Public Television:
Politics and the Battle Over Documentary Film (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press 1997) 4.

4. James Ledbetter, Made Possible
By...The Death of Public Broadcasting in the United States (London:
Verso 1997) 11.

5. The U.S. Census Bureau defines “minority” as “the combined population of people who are Black, American Indian,
Eskimo, Aleut, Asian, Pacific Islander, or of Hispanic origin (who may
be of any race).”

6. U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin:
1995 to 2050, Current Population Reports, P25-1130, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1996 (“Population Projections 1995
to 2050”).

7. Ibid. Table I.

8. Ibid. 1.

9. Based on statistics kept by the Legislative
Resource Center in the U.S. House of Representatives, faxed to author
on Oct. 19, 1999.

10. Statistical Abstract of the
United States (September 30, 1998).

11. U.S. Small Business Administration, Minorities in Business (1999).

12. U.S. Department of Commerce, The
Emerging Minority Marketplace: Minority Population Growth: 1995-2050.

13. David Cay Johnson, “A Larger Legacy
May Await Generations X, Y and Z,” The New York Times (Oct. 20,
1999) C2.

14. John J. Havens and Paul G. Schervish,
“Millionaires and the Millenium: New Estimates of the Forthcoming Wealth
Transfer and the Prospects for a Golden Age of Philanthropy,” published
Oct. 19, 1999; www.bc.edu/swri/m&m.html.

18. Robert Saudek, “The Role of ETV
and Its Relation to Programs,” Memorandum on Some Thoughts Expressed
at Breakfast on June 15, 1966 with Messrs. Land, Weeks and White (copy
given to and on file with author).

"What
we now think of as 'diversity' will soon become the 'mainstream.'
... As politics become more inclusive, might not the unconventional
become more conventional, the marginalized less marginal, and the
risque less risky?"